--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Not that I am particularly worried that they can actually do it (especially with OOL right in the heart of the challenge). Maybe I need to bring back the 18 Q’s too.

But they ALSO know that whistling by the graveyard invites the duppies leaning on the fence and watching the bravado to have some fun by crying out BOO!

EEeeeeeeeK!

Zoom!

PS: I recently heard of a policeman in Ja walking near a graveyard late at night. seeing a man with a coffin on the shoulder he was suspicious and challenged. “It gettin’ crowded where me been livin, so me movin house.” Zoom!

KF

It might be interesting to estimate the probability of Gordon's mind being changed, considering:1. He did not exactly get where he is via a dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence.2. To a first approximation, everyone who might asnswer has better things to do than write a 6000-word essay for a bunch of tards.3. If anyone actually does write the essay, they've probably been banned at least once already.4. Based on the last two-thirds of his post, Gord's finally cracked up.

I think we're well past the probabilistic resources of the solar system here. EEeeeeeeeK! Zoom!

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Not that I am particularly worried that they can actually do it (especially with OOL right in the heart of the challenge). Maybe I need to bring back the 18 Q’s too.

But they ALSO know that whistling by the graveyard invites the duppies leaning on the fence and watching the bravado to have some fun by crying out BOO!

EEeeeeeeeK!

Zoom!

PS: I recently heard of a policeman in Ja walking near a graveyard late at night. seeing a man with a coffin on the shoulder he was suspicious and challenged. “It gettin’ crowded where me been livin, so me movin house.” Zoom!

KF

It might be interesting to estimate the probability of Gordon's mind being changed, considering:1. He did not exactly get where he is via a dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence.2. To a first approximation, everyone who might asnswer has better things to do than write a 6000-word essay for a bunch of tards.3. If anyone actually does write the essay, they've probably been banned at least once already.4. Based on the last two-thirds of his post, Gord's finally cracked up.

I think we're well past the probabilistic resources of the solar system here. EEeeeeeeeK! Zoom!

almost peed LOL

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Only KF would consider that 24 hours is sufficient time for such a challenge.

Godro, the reason you feel this is a fair challenge is no doubt because you can write 6000 words on ID in a matter of minutes.

And the reason you can write so fast about ID is that you don't have to check your facts. ID's tent is large, you can write anything and still be inside that tent. And there is no way for you to check your "facts" as they bear no relation to what is happening in the real world anyway. If I make a claim that has no bearing on evolution anyway, there's no fact that can even be checked (comos/needle in haystack).

So the mere fact that you can set such a challenge and proclaim victory after such a short time is testament to your limited understanding of what it takes to make a reasoned, consilient case.

Perhaps you should set the tone Gordo, and write the equivalent for ID for what you are asking here? Trouble is you won't be able to do it without mentioning "darwinism" as ID is nothing without something to slip into as a hole.

So Gordo, I challenge you. Write that essay but about ID and without a single reference to "Darwinism" and I'll write a 6000 word essay about "Darwinism".

The game is afoot!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Folks: Two days and counting, no takers. Looks like these folks have decided that the “just don’t understand science [a priori materialism flying the flag of science]” talking point is a good enough brush-off. But what this really shows is that there is a big challenge to answer to the origins question from the evolutionary materialist perspective without convenient a prioris, especially when OOL is in the mix. KF

Hi, kairosfocus (I know you dabble your feet in the fever swamp every so often)

You know, I'd be quite prepared to write 6K words as you suggest.

But I wouldn't publish it at UD.

Why?

For one thing I've been twice banned there after trying to post perfectly civil comments pointing out items in the scientific literature that refuted the ID arguments being made at the time. Censorship, pure and simple; and a thing I despise.

For another thing, I couldn't write anything that hasn't been said hundreds of times before, and which you and your sycophants have always ignored.

For yet another thing, I despise the cowardice shown by the denizens of UD, who, with one or two honourable exceptions, are too weak-kneed to take part in debates in fora where censorship is not used, and bad arguments are quickly exposed.

Yet again, I loathe the habit of those same cowards of calling folk who are making strong arguments against them liars, and accusing them of incivility where there is none.

And lastly, what is the point? Even if I were to be able to post 6 thousand well-crafted words, I'm absolutely certain that I would not be allowed to respond to any objections or questions from the ID side.

No, sir. UD is hoist by its own censorious petard; and will continue to be a laughing-stock and a shrinking echo-chamber for that diminishing band of people who believe that the arguments for ID have any merit at all

Oh, and lastly... I should like to say that your own drum-beat-repeated Argument From Very Large Numbers is either the silliest, or the most dishonest, (I'm not sure, it may be both) I've ever seen.

So you can take your "challenge", add it to your censorship, wrap it in your utterly closed mind, fold it until it has many sharp corners, and shove it.

tgpeeler is USING a lot OF randomly capitalised WORDS, JUST like all THE best scientists:

Quote

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols are ABSTRACT THINGS, arranged freely and purposefully in accordance with the rules of the language (and one hopes, logic) in order to create information. Let me say that again. The FREE and PURPOSEFUL arrangement of SYMBOLS is required for the generation of information. Free and purposeful have no standing in physics. Thus the denial of said free will and purpose. Meaning, or semantic content, or in the case of biology, LIFE is encoded into a physical substrate (explained by said physical laws) but it is DIFFERENT and APART FROM the physical substrate. Only a mind or Mind can explain information.

There are no laws of physics nor are there any algorithms based upon these laws that can EVER hope to explain how and why symbols are arranged in one way and not another and why they mean or do not mean anything.

This is not that difficult. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist position is destroyed. It’s game over for these… people. They just haven’t awakened to that difficult (for them) fact yet.

With all these declarations of the game being over, I'm astonished the lights are still on here this morning.

New research project for all those ID scientists: determine why information can only be explained by a mind or Mind, but not by a MIND or miND.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

tgpeeler is USING a lot OF randomly capitalised WORDS, JUST like all THE best scientists:

Quote

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols are ABSTRACT THINGS, arranged freely and purposefully in accordance with the rules of the language (and one hopes, logic) in order to create information. Let me say that again. The FREE and PURPOSEFUL arrangement of SYMBOLS is required for the generation of information. Free and purposeful have no standing in physics. Thus the denial of said free will and purpose. Meaning, or semantic content, or in the case of biology, LIFE is encoded into a physical substrate (explained by said physical laws) but it is DIFFERENT and APART FROM the physical substrate. Only a mind or Mind can explain information.

There are no laws of physics nor are there any algorithms based upon these laws that can EVER hope to explain how and why symbols are arranged in one way and not another and why they mean or do not mean anything.

This is not that difficult. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist position is destroyed. It’s game over for these… people. They just haven’t awakened to that difficult (for them) fact yet.

With all these declarations of the game being over, I'm astonished the lights are still on here this morning.

New research project for all those ID scientists: determine why information can only be explained by a mind or Mind, but not by a MIND or miND.

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Mung: I notice that in good Uncommon Descent tradition you are slinging insults with almost every post in the discussion of GA's (calling people dumb etc ..) meanwhile the self proclaimed moral authorities like KF turn a blind eye - Give the discussion about GA's I thought I would point out that Mung is only two mutations away from Dumb.

Mung: I notice that in good Uncommon Descent tradition you are slinging insults with almost every post in the discussion of GA's (calling people dumb etc ..) meanwhile the self proclaimed moral authorities like KF turn a blind eye - Give the discussion about GA's I thought I would point out that Mung is only two mutations away from Dumb.

He also seems to have a new keyboard he's having so much fun with it ...

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.